I think downsouth was trying to make a very good point? The AR is obviously battle proven, but a lot of people love to add all sorts of gizmos to their AR's. There's nothing wrong with that and it's great that the AR is capable of adding so many different things to it. The problem is that a lot of those gizmos are not battle proven. Its ironic because a lot of people are going for the "tactical" look but the word "tactical" means of or on the battle front. A lot of the the things we have come to associate with "tactical" might be great in specific situations but probably aren't the best idea for a true battle front. Turning on a flashlight attached to your rifle on a battle front would likely get you killed really fast?
If shtf simple is probably going to be better but that's just my opinion. A cleaning rod attached to your rifle is probably going to be much better than a holographic sight?
The AR itself is still battle proven and none of that is meant to reflect poorly on the AR. It's not the rifles fault that so many people want to add cheap red dot sights with an attached holographic sight and a flashlight, and five other things. And of course not everyone does that, but a lot do and many of us have just come to associate all of that with the AR.
I think this also illustrates two different mind sets, low tech and simple vs high tech and complex? The AR itself would be considered high tech and complex compared to most of the other popular rifles. The gizmos attached to the AR are an extension of that high tech mind set. There is nothing wrong with high tech and in the right situation technology can offer distinct advantages. Simplicity can also offer advantages in the right situations so neither is good or bad, it's just two different mind sets and both offer advantages and disadvantages.
Just my .02